send_owned_exam_result_notice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the send is one-time ('once') and targets the account's bound mailbox, which is useful, but it omits key behavior for a notification-sending tool: what happens if no mailbox is bound, whether the action is reversible, whether authentication is required, and whether the score is sent immediately or queued. These gaps are significant given zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and qualifying it with 'verified current exam score' and 'once to this account's bound mailbox.' Every element earns its place by narrowing scope and recipient. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description should do more to define prerequisites and outcomes for a send action. It does not state what 'verified' means operationally, what happens when the mailbox is missing, whether the send is idempotent, or what success looks like. The description is sufficient to identify the action but not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter semantics beyond what is irrelevant. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain any input fields, and it appropriately focuses on the action and target instead.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (send), a specific resource (verified current exam score), a frequency constraint (once), and a recipient (this account's bound mailbox). It clearly distinguishes itself from general notification tools by scoping to exam results and a bound mailbox, though it does not name a sibling alternative. An agent can understand what the tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_learning_stage_notice, send_hourly_report_test, or send_notification_test. It implies use after verification through the word 'verified' and suggests a one-time send, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and surrounding workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.